If I believed your end goal was anything but screaming we're all idiots if we don't give you the answer you really want (and for some reason, apparently need), I might respond with anything but ridicule. But history has taught me otherwise.

« Last Edit: April 04, 2013, 03:16:30 AM by hepcat »

Logged

Warning: You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.

Way to divert and not answer the question. You're absolutely right in that I have no interest in your opinion, but I am curious if Ron, AA, Ritchard, CK, and the other liberals here truly believe Obama has done a good job thus far.

I don't expect very much in terms of an actual answer to this, nevertheless I'm curious.

Huh. I had written a long and cogent reply and then apparently forgot to click Submit before I left. Please just consider yourselves persuaded.

The gist of it was: Yes, I'm satisfied with the direction we're moving in, with some strong specific exceptions. Most of the damage from the 00s has been reversed. One war is done, the other is wrapping up, the economy's struggling back, and the right wing factions are at each other's throats. The country is slowly hobbling back from its crippling lurch to the right. Still got a ways to go but moving in a good direction.

I'd grade Obama a thoroughly average C based purely on performance, then upgrade that to a B- considering the adversity that he's faced since 2010. He could still earn a B+ or even an A- by making meaningful progress against climate change and/or wealth concentration. I had expected that the 2008 collapse would bring the gilded age to a close with another progressive era...but that ain't happening.

p.s. you DO realize there's already a cap on annual contributions, right? It's not like retirement funds are currently untouched by government.

Was gonna post the same thing really. Out of some of the other crazier shit that I expect to see in this budget, this is actually a pretty good idea. Please Eco, save your rage for stuff that might actually be worth raging over.

Just so I'm clear, you think we should all have preemptive rage for an as-of-now undefinable "something" that Obama may or may not do in the future?

I would be a lot less prone to rage if not for the current gun grab mission he's on. I'm especially disgusted with active use of his election campaign vehicle to push his agenda to weaken the Constitution.

Bain used Simple IRA's which are not a loophole and are available to any small business. The maximum contribution is $50k / year for Bain, just as it is for my 20 or so clients that also utilize Simple IRA's.

They certainly benefited from smart investment decisions within the Simple, which last I checked also does not equal a "loophole".

The impact of the completely unconstitutional death tax can also be lessened and or eliminated with smart planning. I'm sure that makes you all shiver...

He didn't orchestrate it, but he's sure as hell going to take advantage of it by passing laws that infringe on the 2nd Amendment and would have had zero impact in preventing this.

Zero impact, huh?

God, I love emotional outbursts.

And we've been passing laws that infringe on 2nd Amendment rights long before today. Just because one group wants to be the one that defines exactly where that line stands on restrictions doesn't mean the majority has to listen to them. If you hate the way America allows people to vote on the laws that the majority of their countrymen wants, move somewhere else.

(I have been waiting to tell a conservative that since Bush was in office. )

Quote from: Eco-Logic on April 07, 2013, 01:40:03 PM

Bain used Simple IRA's which are not a loophole and are available to any small business.

When the hell did Bain Capital become a "small business"?

Quote from: Eco-Logic on April 07, 2013, 01:40:03 PM

They certainly benefited from smart investment decisions within the Simple, which last I checked also does not equal a "loophole".

You really have no clue what a loophole is, do you? Loopholes, while technically legal, are intended to take advantage of something in a way that it wasn't intended to function...often to the detriment of many others involved. As Ironrod pointed out, IRA's are intended as a way for average folks to plan for retirement, not as a tax shelter for the wealthy.

Do you also believe that overseas tax shelters (which also allows money to be accrued without paying the taxes on them that every other citizen is expected to pay) and shipping jobs overseas are just smart investment decisions? Yeah, I guess they are...for the people who are doing it. That there are victims shouldn't matter though, I guess. Well...it won't be until they move your job overseas. Then you'll be screaming bloody murder, I'm betting.

...unless it's a Republican administration wielding the ax.

« Last Edit: April 07, 2013, 04:02:39 PM by hepcat »

Logged

Warning: You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.

They certainly benefited from smart investment decisions within the Simple, which last I checked also does not equal a "loophole".

You really have no clue what a loophole is, do you? Loopholes, while technically legal, are intended to take advantage of something in a way that it wasn't intended to function...often to the detriment of many others involved. As Ironrod pointed out, IRA's are intended as a way for average folks to plan for retirement, not as a tax shelter for the wealthy.

Normal people can contribute $5,000 annually to an IRA, or $6,000 if we're fortunate enough to be old. The average IRA is worth $67,438. Through some perfectly legal chicanery, the Mittmeister used his IRA to dodge taxes on somewhere between $20 and $100 million. I think we can all agree that that's not how IRAs were meant to be used.

So it comes down to how you feel about gaming the system. Most of us think that if it's unintentionally legal for a small number of high rollers to abuse the rules, the rules need to change. I fail to understand the opposing point of view. Why is it wrong to tighten up the law so that it's closer to its original intent?

Maybe I am missing something but it seems the max someone could wind up with per year is $35,000. Even if it is $50,000, Ironrod's question still stands.

EDIT: Here's the qualification for companies able to use simple IRAs:

Quote

Which employers can establish a SIMPLE IRA plan for their company?

Generally, employers (including tax-exempt and governmental employers) with 100 or fewer employees who earned $5,000 or more in compensation during the last calendar year may establish a SIMPLE IRA plan. For purposes of the 100-employee limitation, all employees employed at any time during the calendar year are taken into account, regardless of whether they are eligible to participate. An employer may not establish a SIMPLE IRA plan in any calendar year during which the employer maintained or contributed to any other plan.

This bolded bit:

Quote

Which employees are eligible to participate in the plan?

Generally, any employee who earned at least $5,000 during any two prior calendar years and who is expected to earn $5,000 in the current year. As the employer, you may reduce these requirements, but you may not make them more restrictive. You may choose to exclude those employees covered under a collective bargaining agreement for which benefits were the subject of good faith bargaining.

leads me to believe it was intended for small businesses with low-salaried employees.

I'm tired of all the BS.I'm tired of wingnuts.I'm tired of all the self-interest and greed that drives everything in politics.I'm tired of constantly poking our noses into the affairs of the rest of the world when we have plenty of problems here at home.Sometimes, I'm really tired of our government as a whole.But I don't know a better one.

As for Obama, I think his predecessor left him with a hideous situation and he kept us from sliding completely off the cliff.

The Dow Jones industrial average closed above 15,000 for the first time ever Tuesday, but fewer Americans than ever are benefiting from the stock market boom.

According to Gallup, only 52 percent of Americans own any stock. That is down from a high of 65 percent in 2007 and the lowest number ever reported by Gallup. Meanwhile the richest 5 percent of Americans own 82 percent of all the stock.

Speaking at an investors conference in New York on Wednesday, hedge fund manager Paul Singer blamed the Federal Reserve for boosting stocks and impeding economic recovery. Singer said that quantitative easing has caused a “distorted recovery” and created “a poisonous atmosphere in which to rely upon the private sector to generate growth.”

“Most of the people in this room are doing just fine,” Singer said. “The ordinary person is not experiencing the effective equivalent of Dow Jones 15,000. … The average person is paying a lot of money … for the necessities of life, is worried about his or her job or the job of his or her family … is experiencing an economy that has basically recession-level employment.”

I've been around for a long time, both here and at OO. Don't post much anymore, but my opinion is as valid as any of yours. BTW, how many of you 'oh so fair minded people' bothered to watch any of the Benghazi hearings today? Or do you only watch the LSM and didn't even know about it. In case any of you forgot, 4 Americans died in that attack, and it was blamed on a stupid video no one had ever heard of. Now, I'm going to make my husband dinner, so just blast away as most of you usually do if someone doesn't fit your 'mold', or doesn't agree with your 'talking points'.